On Anonymous

[LogicNProportion]

I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.

And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?

Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.

To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?

Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.

You don't have to be an asshole to get tagged, you just have to do something that rubs them the wrong way.

We now just went back full circle into the fact that they are nothing but bullies. Its like being on a playground and hoping you don't get the attention of the abnormally large jock 5th graders, the main difference here is that there are no teachers to call them off, you have the full force of socially stunted man babies doing all they can to tear you down.

Just wanted to say, that to an extent, bullies are actually a good thing. Nothing creates quite like conflict. If you unable to get around the conflict, well, that's just life. It's unfair, and it's survival of the fittest working. In this case, what makes Anonymous 'the fittest' are their organization methods, techniques and skills, and sheer size. It let's them do what they want. Don't mean to sound like an ass, but that's just how the world works.

And besides, getting trolled is just commonplace on the net now. Don't feed the trolls, and don't be trollbait. If you find yourself coming under severe harassment, chances are, in some shape or fashion, you were being such an asshole enough that you became infamous enough so that your face or info becomes well-known on certain image boards or websites. The guy who calls someone an idiot doesn't make it to there. It often takes a special kind of person to make it there. People who either do incredible good, or horribly bad. Sometimes something so bad it's good, and vice versa.

As someone who frequents those websites and studies the 'culture' A LOT, but never acts with it, perhaps I have a bit of insight.

 

[Starke]

You are purely blaming Anonymous. You previously stated that you just utterly hate Anonymous no matter what. We're done here.

If you want a different perspective, I'm simply disappointed.

Anonymous started out claiming some kind of noble intent, but that got lost a long time ago somewhere along the way.

I'm not sure I was ever ideologically in their camp, but their post-Scientology actions have poisoned me against the group pretty effectively.

I said that Anon had no reason to go after Sony, and that Sony only started blaming Anon once they got the bill for what happened. Before that, Sony was in agreement that Anon didn't do it.

As much as it pains me, to admit it, you have a point, there's a possibility that Anonymous did take down PSN, but that seems kinda unlikely at this point.

It is most likely that, in this case, they were implicated as scapegoats by some third party. I'm not excusing or even defending the organization, just that this may be the one time they genuinely didn't do it.

So, as I said: We're done here. Go ahead and blindly froth at Anonymous. Because that totally gets things done, and totally shows how evil they are. Enjoy trying to prove how a bunch of hackers are affiliated with an anonymous, amorphous entity that prides itself in being literally anybody.

As much as I want to snark, that really is the problem with Anonymous: It continues to claim it can be "literally anybody", but it's not. It is, or was, a fairly coherent cabal pretending to be non-existent. On one hand it's laudable for just how balls out insane it is to say that in the first place. But, it has left them in the position where they have no way to effectively control what they did or did not do. They used kids as a disposable smokescreen for their activities, and whether they were some kind of internet freedom fighters, electronic terrorists, or just trolls, their inability to control what was or was not a part of their operations lead them to where they are now, blamed for things they arguably did not do, while engaging in activities that are guaranteed to get them sent up a creek.

Clipclop observed that some of them are guilty of crimes that carry a 25 year sentence, and in that he is sadly mistaken. Some of the actions Anon members have engaged in are capital crimes.

Next you'll be cheering on the Patriot Act or something.

Yay, being able to think for myself is hard and I approve any law that removes my ability to think for my self with an icepick.

In all fairness I probably could write something in defense of it... it wouldn't coincide with my personal opinions though...

 

[Starke]

You just decided to state simply I'm blaming the wrong person and leave.

To be fair, he may have a point on the PSN outage. Actually doing that would have been stupid even by Anonymous standards... and there's a phrase I never thought I'd type.

We are talking about people dumb enough to formally declare war on their own governments and allies of their respective governments. For Americans that's a treason related charge (declaring war on an ally), for Brits that is treason. And at the end of the day these are charges that can still get oneself executed, even in the developed world. What compounds this in stupidity and insanity is they did this intentionally to manipulate said governments.

Anonymous and more recently LulzSec have demonstrated an absolutely mind-boggling failure to understand how the law works, and been doing everything in their power to alienate as many people (outside of their 11-22 demographic) as possible.

So when I say this is stupid by their standards, my brain threatens to collapse into some kind of singularity state and eat my face... or sanity... either way.

That said... I wouldn't really be surprised if it had been them, but that isn't the most likely explanation.

EDIT: Inglip has declared: "Regime exerma"

 

[Starke]

Just wanted to say, that to an extent, bullies are actually a good thing. Nothing creates quite like conflict. If you unable to get around the conflict, well, that's just life. It's unfair, and it's survival of the fittest working. In this case, what makes Anonymous 'the fittest' are their organization methods, techniques and skills, and sheer size. It let's them do what they want. Don't mean to sound like an ass, but that's just how the world works.

No, that's a theory to how the world works. What you're describing is evolution through lord of the flies reruns. Or, to be more fair to your intention, forced evolution. The theory holds that you break things... people, stuff, whatever, through conflict. Those that survive come back stronger, those that don't, well, "survival of the fittest," right?

The problem with this are; first, it's incredibly destructive, long term, to everyone involved, second, people don't really come back stronger from perpetual conflict, they wear down, and eventually break. Some individuals lash out with substantial force, but in the long run people are weakened by perpetual conflict, not strengthened by them.

Finally, none of this is the behavior of a bully. A bully is someone who intentionally seeks out individuals (or in this case other groups) that cannot defend itself. It then lords that over it's victim while humiliating them. Bullies tend to seek out the kind of person who won't turn on them, and tend to back off when they do.

It does not have an upside. Even individuals who retaliate don't do so from some inner strength, not really, they lash out in response to their own breakdown, and recovery is a long painful process if it ever occurs.

And besides, getting trolled is just commonplace on the net now. Don't feed the trolls, and don't be trollbait. If you find yourself coming under severe harassment, chances are, in some shape or fashion, you were being such an asshole enough that you became infamous enough so that your face or info becomes well-known on certain image boards or websites. The guy who calls someone an idiot doesn't make it to there. It often takes a special kind of person to make it there. People who either do incredible good, or horribly bad. Sometimes something so bad it's good, and vice versa.

Here you're assuming something critical. You're assuming that Anonymous is working off a coherent ideology for trolling, but they really aren't. They're bullying people and then hopping onto the next victim. And while no one liked Scientology, so they were fair game, this has become about harming random passers by who weren't being assholes in any way shape or form, simply because some little shit decided to piss on everyone they perceived as being incapable of defending themselves.

For instance the LulzSec Sony hack that resulted in a lot of users having their names, passwords, phone numbers, addresses, and email posted. These aren't people who were being assholes. They weren't being trollbait. These were people who were, by in large elderly citizens, and their information was published in retaliation for something they had no part in.

Now you can hide behind some philosophy of forced evolution, but in a case like this, there's no upside, not for these people at any rate. Just victimization.

As someone who frequents those websites and studies the 'culture' A LOT, but never acts with it, perhaps I have a bit of insight.

Perhaps. But, these flaws are built into their society, so it's not like their aware of this themselves.

 

[Popido]

I find hating Anonymous pretty pointless.

Its not an actual organization, nor political view, nor person for the very least.

More of an realisation, that people with almost nothing in common can unite under atleast one common interest to affect or change things.

You can disagree with it, sure. Thats part of its nature.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

I think i've had just about enough of the topic of this thread and i think it would be best if it was just locked since the topic is going nowhere.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

I think i've had just about enough of the topic of this thread and i think it would be best if it was just locked since the topic is going nowhere.

No offense, but your not even a long time poster. A lot of points have been made and raised in this thread and its gone actually everywhere over the course of these past 3 days. I'm actually encouraged that a lot of posters of this community actually challenge the "anonymous way" and speak up about it. Instead of just falling in line and fearing the backlash.

Just because some random comes in tired of the subject matter doesn't mean it should be locked. If a high ranking member of this community gave the same view point I'm sure people would be more inclined to care .With all do respect, who exactly are you to say when and where a topic is done? You haven't even posted a single thing in it, which means the only way you can be "tired" of it is continually coming in here and reading it. You could just as easily not come in here and look at it if you don't like it.

No offense but it makes you sound arrogant.

I've been reading the topic for the past few days myself and i've seen your posts and quite frankly i don't care either way, but i've got 399 posts while you have 92 and who are you to tell me i'm not a long time poster along with the fact you are very one sided and you know "you could also easily not come here and reply to my post".

 

[Starke]

I think i've had just about enough of the topic of this thread and i think it would be best if it was just locked since the topic is going nowhere.

No offense, but your not even a long time poster. A lot of points have been made and raised in this thread and its gone actually everywhere over the course of these past 3 days. I'm actually encouraged that a lot of posters of this community actually challenge the "anonymous way" and speak up about it. Instead of just falling in line and fearing the backlash.

Just because some random comes in tired of the subject matter doesn't mean it should be locked. If a high ranking member of this community gave the same view point I'm sure people would be more inclined to care .With all do respect, who exactly are you to say when and where a topic is done? You haven't even posted a single thing in it, which means the only way you can be "tired" of it is continually coming in here and reading it. You could just as easily not come in here and look at it if you don't like it.

No offense but it makes you sound arrogant.

I've been reading the topic for the past few days myself and i've seen your posts and quite frankly i don't care either way, but i've got 399 posts while you have 92 and who are you to tell me i'm not a long time poster along with the fact you are very one sided and you know "you could also easily not come here and reply to my post".

Can I has cookie? To be fair, this is a subject where the lines are pretty clearly drawn. That said, there are some pretty entertaining and or interesting points coming up in a number of posts, so saying this thread should be hauled out behind the woodshed does strike me as somewhat premature.

 

[Retosa]

You are purely blaming Anonymous. You previously stated that you just utterly hate Anonymous no matter what. We're done here.

If you want a different perspective, I'm simply disappointed.

Anonymous started out claiming some kind of noble intent, but that got lost a long time ago somewhere along the way.

I'm not sure I was ever ideologically in their camp, but their post-Scientology actions have poisoned me against the group pretty effectively.

I said that Anon had no reason to go after Sony, and that Sony only started blaming Anon once they got the bill for what happened. Before that, Sony was in agreement that Anon didn't do it.

As much as it pains me, to admit it, you have a point, there's a possibility that Anonymous did take down PSN, but that seems kinda unlikely at this point.

It is most likely that, in this case, they were implicated as scapegoats by some third party. I'm not excusing or even defending the organization, just that this may be the one time they genuinely didn't do it.

So, as I said: We're done here. Go ahead and blindly froth at Anonymous. Because that totally gets things done, and totally shows how evil they are. Enjoy trying to prove how a bunch of hackers are affiliated with an anonymous, amorphous entity that prides itself in being literally anybody.

As much as I want to snark, that really is the problem with Anonymous: It continues to claim it can be "literally anybody", but it's not. It is, or was, a fairly coherent cabal pretending to be non-existent. On one hand it's laudable for just how balls out insane it is to say that in the first place. But, it has left them in the position where they have no way to effectively control what they did or did not do. They used kids as a disposable smokescreen for their activities, and whether they were some kind of internet freedom fighters, electronic terrorists, or just trolls, their inability to control what was or was not a part of their operations lead them to where they are now, blamed for things they arguably did not do, while engaging in activities that are guaranteed to get them sent up a creek.

Clipclop observed that some of them are guilty of crimes that carry a 25 year sentence, and in that he is sadly mistaken. Some of the actions Anon members have engaged in are capital crimes.

Next you'll be cheering on the Patriot Act or something.

Yay, being able to think for myself is hard and I approve any law that removes my ability to think for my self with an icepick.

In all fairness I probably could write something in defense of it... it wouldn't coincide with my personal opinions though...

Alright, I had a nice long post about what Anonymous is on page... 3 or 4, I forget.

Either way, Anonymous did NOT start out claiming noble intent. The original intent of Anonymous was always "For the Lulz". The "noble" side of Anon came about after Operation Chanology/Project Chanology.

Also, interestingly enough, there are certain core groups within "Anonymous", groups that know each other. Yet, what I find hilarious is that just because its easy to tell that, that instantly "Anonymous" should all of a sudden NOT be "Anonymous" anymore. A group of people who were already friends all join the Anonymous mob, and have ideas that the mob takes up. They do this multiple times through carefully crafting their ideas and posts so that the mob will take up their cause. This gives them the ability to direct the mob toward their goals. All of a sudden, these people are the "CORE LEADERZ OF ANONYMOUS!", which for some reason, means "Anonymous" has a core leadership? Give it a rest, the only reason Anonymous seems coherent is because once the mob takes up a cause, it rushes forward blindly and makes sure that the cause is filled with hilarity. Usually because the results will ENSURE everyone gets lulz, whether or not the cause is righteous or not doesn't matter. And at any time, the mob can decide they don't want to take up the cause.

Anonymous does not want to control the actions of Anonymous. Some "spokesanons" like to try to make sure that "Anonymous" doesn't get blamed for shit they didn't do, and will say "Anonymous did it" or "Anonymous didn't do it", but as has been noted, Anonymous can be literally anyone. The main hackers that tend to start up certain operations and follow specific ideals may not have done it, but that doesn't matter. Anonymous shouldn't be considered a group. It's a blanket term for anyone who doesn't want their identity revealed. And if you don't want your identity revealed... Why not hide behind the wall of Anon?

 

[RDubayoo]

So you can't get them to turn on each other because they don't know each other? Oh, but they do. Wasn't there an article not so long ago about an Anonymous Civil War, and some twit threatening to expose the IP addresses of the other twits? I think this reveals that Anonymous can, in fact, be taken down IF you go after the ringleaders rather than the grunts first, because apparently the other Anonymous members aren't so anonymous to them...

 

[Sing Kritanakom]

I applaud Clipclop for speaking out against Anon. I hope they and all their supporters will, despite disagreeing with what he says, "die to defend his right to say it".

Or you could, you know, just attack him personally and refuse to listen to the reasons he gives for hating anon solely *because* he hates anon...


P.S. Here's to us all going meta and using free speech to defend free speech's advocates as they attack the free speech of the "enemies" of free speech!

 

[MirrorForTheSun]

Experienced Points: On Anonymous

Shamus considers the Anonymous phenomenon.

Read Full Article

And again you sympathize with a group of bullies. What is it with the escapist and going head over heels to defend the name of anonymous? Are you part of the collective? Do they have you scared enough that you can tackle the real issues they impose?

Seriously, I'm tired of these lopsided arguments you people keep coming up with to shine them as "the good guys" its sickening. And guess what? if you even listen to the voice of your readers in the forums, you will see they aren't buying it any longer.

You do realize you're doing exactly the same thing by branding all of Anonymous as "the bad guys," right?

The whole thing is pointless. Anonymous is a lot of different people with a lot of different aims. We can't even be sure most of those incidents were engineered or performed by the same people. You also make the mistake of confusing Anonymous on 4chan with Anonymous the hacker collective. There may be overlap, but they're not all the same people, and they certainly don't have the same goals. The only thing you do with this polarization is make yourself look naïve.

 

[Starke]

Alright, I had a nice long post about what Anonymous is on page... 3 or 4, I forget.

I read it, and responded to it, I think.

Either way, Anonymous did NOT start out claiming noble intent. The original intent of Anonymous was always "For the Lulz". The "noble" side of Anon came about after Operation Chanology/Project Chanology.

You're probably right. I remember there being a kind of perceived nobility to going after CoS, but sitting here and thinking about it, I suspect that came from the media coverage of them, and not from within.

Also, interestingly enough, there are certain core groups within "Anonymous", groups that know each other. Yet, what I find hilarious is that just because its easy to tell that, that instantly "Anonymous" should all of a sudden NOT be "Anonymous" anymore. A group of people who were already friends all join the Anonymous mob, and have ideas that the mob takes up. They do this multiple times through carefully crafting their ideas and posts so that the mob will take up their cause. This gives them the ability to direct the mob toward their goals. All of a sudden, these people are the "CORE LEADERZ OF ANONYMOUS!", which for some reason, means "Anonymous" has a core leadership? Give it a rest, the only reason Anonymous seems coherent is because once the mob takes up a cause, it rushes forward blindly and makes sure that the cause is filled with hilarity. Usually because the results will ENSURE everyone gets lulz, whether or not the cause is righteous or not doesn't matter. And at any time, the mob can decide they don't want to take up the cause.

In information that came out during the schism, it was always about a sub-faction within Anon that had actual control in the movement.

Anon prided itself on being a completely decentralized group, massive, amorphous, and, as a result, invincible. But, since Scientology that's proving to be simply not true. We'd been hearing rumors about ShadowAnons basically from the moment anyone cared about the movement, people who actually had control over the movement, as ridiculous as that may sound, and the schism last month finally gave us, not just a concrete structure, but a lot of insight as well.

Rather unsurprisingly there was always a core leadership structure, people who actually had control over the movement. They directed action in the IRC servers for the group as a whole, and while there were some false starts that occurred without their control, by in large they were responsible for the relative coherency of Anon's actions.

Anonymous does not want to control the actions of Anonymous. Some "spokesanons" like to try to make sure that "Anonymous" doesn't get blamed for shit they didn't do, and will say "Anonymous did it" or "Anonymous didn't do it", but as has been noted, Anonymous can be literally anyone. The main hackers that tend to start up certain operations and follow specific ideals may not have done it, but that doesn't matter. Anonymous shouldn't be considered a group. It's a blanket term for anyone who doesn't want their identity revealed. And if you don't want your identity revealed... Why not hide behind the wall of Anon?

And while this would almost make sense, the fact of the matter is, Anonymous refers to an anonymous (keep track of capitalization here) group that maintained (until fairly recently) a relatively coherent pseudo ideology. This has changed since the schism, but still.

Anonymous published press releases through a server based out Russia. These are, by necessity, not the actions of a bunch of disorganized malcontents. This is the structure of a genuine organization, whatever they like to brand themselves as.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

I tend to think of Anonymous as the internet Batman. He does things his own way and has his own line of justice, but in the end of Dark Knight, he was made out to be a criminal. I wonder, if it wasn't Anonymous that hacked Sony, I wonder if the real Anonymous could find these hackers and bring them to light so they can be arrested. I'm sure people would have a much more positive opinion of Anonymous if they did stuff like that.

 

[Sing Kritanakom]

I wonder, if it wasn't Anonymous that hacked Sony, I wonder if the real Anonymous could find these hackers and bring them to light so they can be arrested. I'm sure people would have a much more positive opinion of Anonymous if they did stuff like that.

This part of your post I agree with wholeheartedly.

 

[(LK)]

Barring a truly foolproof way of un-traceably transferring money over national borders that allows both the giver and receiver to exchange money in subpoena-proof anonymity, it would be impossible for them to turn a profit.

BitCoins fit this definition. They aren't impossible to trace, but prohibitively difficult. They're already being used as the standard currency of an online black market site I won't mention by name here, but where people openly trade drugs and even have persistent user accounts and accumulate seller feedback.